Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
S...
The GMO prevents new communities from developing if the city can't afford the servicing yet/there isn't demand. Developers don't like it, but its probably critical in slower economic times. Davison looking at scrapping it is probably good for campaign contributions but I think its bad for voters.
|
This is an over-simplification. Prior to early 2000's, the City would borrow capital to fund and build major infrastructure projects to service new subdivisions
as they get approved. This practice has stopped, because sometimes the capital infrastructure would be built but a new community would not - resulting in wasted capital resources for something that was not needed in the first place. Bronconnier has lead the shift to a "developer-pays" model, where any major infrastructure requirements must be front-ended by developers seeking new community approvals. This was a major business shift, as all smaller land developers have been effectively pushed out of Calgary as a result. However; leaving the financial capacity aside, the decision to take a risk and develop was still up to developers. Bronconnier's infamous words: "I believe in the fundamental right of developers to lose their own money".
GMO process was implemented as an extra layer of approval added for new greenfield communities to proceed based on presenting individual "business cases" to Council and justifying the economic and social benefits of adding another new community in the suburbs. In essence, the Administration and Council wanted to veto any new development they didn't like for any reason. The process is vague, convoluted and unnecessary. It has undoubtedly contributed to the sharp increases in housing costs in Calgary, due to suppressing supply of housing from ready-to-go communities.
All three major mayoral candidates have spoken against the GMO process and promised to have it reviewed and removed, which is the right thing to do regardless of their political leanings.